NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED EMPLOYERS ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY RETIREE HEALTH PLANS. But you promised! is a refrain heard by parents of
|
|
- Camron Benson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED EMPLOYERS ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY RETIREE HEALTH PLANS But you promised! is a refrain heard by parents of toddlers and teenagers. Like these parents, employers too are often puzzled as to when, how, and the extent to which they have made certain promises to employees. These implied promises can be expensive and disruptive when they involve employee benefits, particularly retiree medical benefits allegedly promised on a permanent basis to former employees and retirees. This article reviews recent cases discussing such implied promises and suggests ways employers can limit their scope. Background Employers first began to explore possibilities for altering retiree benefits in the 1980s, when a combination of factors converged to focus attention on the issue. First, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Financial Accounting Statement 106 (FAS 106), which required corporations to reflect the value of future retiree medical liabilities on their financial statements. This in turn caused employers to evaluate seriously the scope and extent of their retiree health programs, and whether such programs could be sustained in the future. As health care costs rose dramatically, and employers
2 began to examine the demographics of their workforce, many recognized that if left unchecked, retiree medical obligations could soon surpass benefit program costs for active employees. Many employers addressed rising health care costs by restricting or eliminating retiree medical benefits for future retirees. However, as retiree costs continued to grow, and as retirees began to constitute a larger and more expensive portion of total healthcare costs of all active and retired employees, employers have also attempted to manage health care costs of current retirees. This was particularly the case as employers began to introduce managed care programs for active employees. Vesting Concepts In sharp contrast to the laws governing qualified pension plans, there are generally no statutory rules requiring that participants in health plans have vested or nonforfeitable rights, although "qualification" requirements applicable to funding vehicles such as voluntary employees' beneficiary associations (VEBAs), Section 420 pension accounts, and cafeteria plans impose some limitations in that regard
3 Moreover, with the exception of limited rules governing insured plans and certain aspects of multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts any state law regulation of these benefits. Initially, some courts attempted to advance a theory that retiree medical benefits vest as a common law right upon retirement, but this principle has generally not been adopted unless other significant factors are present. In Hansen v. White Farm Equip. Co., 5 Employee Benefits Cas.(BNA) 2130 (N.D. Ohio 1984), rev d, 788 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1986), the District Court held that "the modern view" was that an employer may not terminate the benefits of a retired employee as a matter of federal common law. This decision was reversed, but the Sixth Circuit was careful to preserve its view that although retiree status itself does not create full vesting, a presumption in favor of benefit continuation as long as the affected individual is a retiree should be inferred in an analysis of these issues. In part, these cases emphasized the relative economic powerlessness of retirees once they retired. Courts that adopt this approach often color their interpretation - 3 -
4 of the facts of the case with the weight of this inference. Other cases have continued to recognize that ERISA does not require automatic vesting of health and welfare plans, and seek more concrete proof of a promise to vest benefits. For example, in Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 400 (6 th Cir. 1998), the Sixth Circuit, after observing that ERISA does not require vesting of welfare plans, stated that an employer s commitment to vest such benefits is not to be inferred lightly; the intent to vest must be found in plan documents and must be stated in clear and express language. Although ERISA does not require vesting of welfare benefits, it does require that employers state with some precision in their plan documents the scope of benefits to be provided under the plan. Every ERISA plan must specify a funding mechanism, allocate operational and administrative responsibilities, and state how payments are to be made to and from the plan. Courts and plaintiffs have emphasized these requirements and argued that where the plan documents are ambiguous, promises of lifetime benefits to retirees can be inferred. These lifetime promises, particularly if written - 4 -
5 but even if oral, can only be contradicted or amended if the plan document is properly drafted. As discussed below, courts continue to struggle with the issues of the scope of plan documents and whether the language contained in such documents is in fact ambiguous. Reservation of Rights Clauses Plan sponsors stand a better chance of being able to amend or modify their retiree medical benefits if the official plan documents and any supporting statements contain a clear "reservation of rights" clause that gives the sponsor the right, among others, to amend the plan. For example, courts have held that the express reservation of a health plan sponsor s right to amend or terminate the plan overrode certain ambiguous oral statements about the plan s permanence. In Moore v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 856 F.2d 488 (2d Cir. 1988), and Musto v. American Gen. Corp., 861 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S (1989), the retirees challenged attempts to impose employee premium contributions, increases in deductibles, and certain changes in how the plan was coordinated with Medicare, maintaining that they were promised lifetime - 5 -
6 benefits at no cost. The courts refused to allow oral promises to override the express reservation of rights language of the plan documents, absent a showing tantamount to proof of fraud. See Moore, 856 F.2d at 492. In Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 92 F.3d (6 th Cir. 1996), reversed en banc, 133 F.3d 388 (1998), the District Court upheld a class of early retirees challenge to a reduction in their benefits on the theory that GM s early retirement agreements promised to provide a certain level of coverage to employees who elected early retirement. These agreements were considered to be either separate plans or modifications to the existing plan that subsumed any reservation of rights clause in the original plan document. This decision, which was rendered after a trial on the facts, was initially affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, but later reversed en banc because [n]one of GM s representations [to the early retirees] suggested that the plan was being modified...far from modifying the terms of the welfare plan, it seems to us that this language [a reference to benefits applicable to early retirees] incorporated the plan s terms. Id. at 403. Thus, the documents promises that benefits are - 6 -
7 lifetime benefits did not contradict or make ambiguous the employer s clearly reserved right to amend or terminate the plan and to eliminate lifetime benefits. Rather, the employer s promise of lifetime benefits was a qualified promise provided that the company chose not to terminate the plans... Although the principles of Sprague are often applied, a reservation of rights clause may not automatically trump a promise of lifetime benefits. In In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 n.11 (3d Cir. 1995), the Third Circuit made it clear that each case must be considered fact-specific and the result would depend on the language the court was called upon to review. Moreover, if the reservation of rights clause has any hint of ambiguity, the courts may not automatically allow it to be applied. For example, in Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, 967 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1992), the communications to participants stated that the "employer necessarily reserves the right to amend [the plans]... in conformity with applicable legislation." The court found that the in conformity language thus limited the ability of the employer to make changes to the plan
8 When retiree medical benefits are collectively bargained, the analysis is similar but not identical, with a focus on the collective bargaining agreement language and whether benefits were meant to survive the expiration or alteration of such agreements. In UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S (1984), the Sixth Circuit held that absent evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that retiree health benefits continue for the retiree's life. But not all courts have taken such a position. For example, in Turner v. Local Union No. 302, International Bhd. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, 604 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1979), the court held that the employer could reduce health benefits after a review of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. In many cases, the right to amend the plan is not as unambiguous as an employer might like, because it has only been recently that statements of risks and obligations contained in medical plan documents have been carefully scrutinized. Many were written by insurance companies and focus on the actual benefits offered with ERISA rights statements added as an - 8 -
9 afterthought. When older documents do not contain an express reservation of rights clause, the issue has been whether an employer can use its power to amend the plan to add one before changing coverage. Such an addition was permitted in Pierce v. Security Trust Life Ins. Co., 979 F.2d 23 (4th Cir. 1992). But other courts have not been so lenient. See, e.g., Helwig v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 93 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 510 U.S (1997), which held that a later SPD which included a reservation of rights clause could not be effective where the prior SPD stated that medical benefits [would] be continued for the rest of your life without cost to you. Id. at 248 (citation omitted). The court held even though the master plan document, which was an insurance policy, did in fact state that it could be terminated at any time by the employer or the insurer, the right to terminate referred to the contractual arrangement between the employer and the insurer, and did not affect plan participant rights. Finally, even where reservation of rights clauses are contained in the documents, it is important that the employer have properly adopted the amendments. In Schoonejongen v
10 Curtiss-Wright Corp., 143 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 1998), the Third Circuit had to determine whether the employer exercised the proper corporate authority to adopt an amendment to its plan. After extensive review of state law and corporate bylaws, it was determined that the amendment procedure was proper, but the court noted in passing that the parties were in their fourteenth year of litigation over the terms of the medical program and the employer s authority to change those terms. Promissory Estoppel and Fiduciary Claims Even if the plan documents and SPDs contain a reservation of rights clause, retirees employ other theories to maintain that their benefits cannot be changed. Retirees have used the promissory estoppel theory to argue that despite language in plan documents, if an employer promises postretirement medical benefits in exchange for other consideration (e.g., early retirement, or voluntary termination), such benefits cannot be changed even if amendment is permitted under the plan documents. This theory may be useful to individuals, but at present the courts have been reluctant to permit its use in class actions, maintaining that the questions of reliance are
11 personal to individuals. 1 Another theory that has enjoyed some success among plaintiffs, at least in egregious cases, is an argument that sponsors that modified their post-retirement medical plans breached their fiduciary duties in so doing. Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996), was the prime example of such a case. Here, the employer established a corporate subsidiary to which benefit liabilities were transferred. The court held that the employer induced older employees to transfer to the subsidiary by telling them that their employee benefits would remain unchanged, and that such an action was a fiduciary breach when the benefits in fact were to change. In In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefit ERISA Litig., 242 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2001), the court reviewed a variety of claims made by retirees participating in a health plan. It agreed with the holdings of the district court that the retirees did not have a claim of breach of contract based on any lifetime language in the plan documents. The unambiguous reservation of rights clause also caused the court to dismiss the estoppel claim. However, the retirees also made a breach of
12 fiduciary duty claim and demonstrated that in some cases company representatives may have counseled them that they had lifetime medical benefits without regard to the reservation of rights clause, so the Third Circuit remanded that issue for trial, noting that this allegation may have to be reviewed on an individual basis. Illustration of These Principles The recent case of Deboard v. Sunshine Mining & Refining Co., 208 F.3d 1228 (10 th Cir. 2000) illustrates many of these concepts. The plaintiffs in that case were former employees of Woods Petroleum Corporation, which was merged into and became a subsidiary of Sunshine Mining in July of As part of the merger agreement, Sunshine agreed not to terminate Woods employee welfare benefit plans for a period of ten years. In August of 1985, due to a downturn in the oil and gas industry, Sunshine s subsidiaries, including Woods, initiated a voluntary early retirement subsidy or buyout program, that provided enhanced pension benefits for employees of a certain age and service level who opted to retire ( Rule of 70 retirees ). In response to questions from employees as to how
13 their post-retirement health benefits would be handled under the buyout program, Woods issued a letter explaining the program. The letter, which began with [f]or informational purposes only, advised employees of their insurance entitlement for which they would be eligible if they elected to retire under the Rule of 70. The letter stated that former employees and dependents would be eligible to receive healthcare under our current group hospitalization plan...fully paid for by Woods Petroleum Corporation s expenses...until the time of your death. The letter went on to explain that during the retiree s life, he would submit claims to Woods Personnel Department. Coverage for the retiree s spouse would continue for one year after the retiree s death, and at that point the spouse could convert to private coverage, 100% paid by the spouse, who would submit claims to the insurer, Mass Mutual. The letter further explained that once the retiree reached age 65, Medicare would provide primary coverage and the Woods program would be secondary. In 1986, Woods circulated another memo outlining modifications to the health plan, including a requirement that
14 all employees contribute $20 a month if they selected family coverage. The requirement did not apply to current retirees, but the memo made it clear that it could apply to future retirees. A second early retirement buyout was offered in the fall of 1986; this one required the participants in that buyout to pay the $20 per month family coverage, but they were told that the terms and conditions of the buyout were otherwise identical to the October 1985 buyout. The plaintiffs in the case participated in either the 1985 or 1986 buyout. In 1995, ten years after the merger with Sunshine, Woods sent a letter to all participants in the retiree health program, indicating the it had maintained the program for the promised ten post-merger years, and would continue to provide for retiree coverage but at the retiree s expense. Certain of the retirees protested the decision, arguing that they agreed to the early retirement program only because of the promise of lifetime coverage, and that the letter describing such coverage in 1985 constituted a new plan. The district court granted summary judgment to the retirees on the question of whether a separate Rule of 70 Plan existed, and
15 after a trial on the facts, found that a fiduciary breach had occurred when the employer amended the plan. The court rejected similar claims for dental and life insurance coverage, maintaining that the 1985 correspondence was not explicit enough in that regard to create a plan. The circuit court agreed that a separate plan had been created, noting that employers can create more than one plan. The court said that this separate Rule of 70 plan met the ERISA requirements for a plan it had a written document (the letter) which identified the eligible participants and benefits, as well as setting forth the administrative structure and explaining who would process claims. The court ignored the reservation of rights clause in the current medical plan, as well as the employer s argument that the reservation of rights clause was incorporated into the new plan in the same manner that medical benefits were incorporated. The court believed that the reservation of rights clause was not incorporated into the new plan because the old plan s SPD mentioned the right to terminate under the heading The Insurer. Since the right to terminate was focused on the
16 insurer, the court said, it could be read as dealing only with the right to terminate or change the insurer, not the plan itself. The court also found that the parties conduct the fact that in 1986 the employer did not impose the new $20 family coverage charge on current retirees -- indicated an intent to create vested insurance benefits. This differed from other cases in which courts had ruled that an employer s failure to exercise amendment rights does not waive those rights. Finally, having lost the ability to charge for retiree benefits, the employer maintained that it had never promised a specific type or level of benefits. The court agreed that the more difficult issue was the type and level of health insurance contemplated by the new plan. The district court held that the Rule of 70 letters were ambiguous here. The circuit court found, however, that the intent manifested was to provide retirees with the same level of benefit coverage as Woods current salaried employees, and that retiree coverage could change only if coverage were to change for active salaried employees. This provided benefits for retirees (because the
17 salaried employees health benefit plan had not been terminated), but avoided the result of protecting retiree medical benefits at a level greater than benefits that they would have enjoyed were they active employees. Conclusion Employers changing their retiree medical benefits can face many challenges. Some employers are hampered by boilerplate SPDs and employee communications prepared long before companies became sensitive to the need to specify the scope of any retiree medical benefits. Representations undertaken in mergers and spinoffs, often prepared by corporate attorneys who are also not focused on these issues, can return to haunt the employer in the future. Even employers who take conservative measures such as grandfathering benefits for current retirees due to fairness concerns rather than contractual obligations, can find that such actions can be used
18 to infer that retiree benefits are vested. Employers must live with their current programs and documents, but can take some steps to retain flexibility in the future. In addition to careful review of documents provided under all benefit plans or corporate severance programs, employers can and should review amendment procedures to ensure that any amendments at least pass procedural muster. Employers that grandfather certain groups of retirees with respect to benefit changes should consider telling those retirees that this action does not waive their right to make changes in the future. Communications (both written and oral) with retirees or potential retirees must be monitored. Coordination of retiree medical changes with the administration of the active employees medical plan also provides challenges. For example, various proposals over the years to fix Medicare illustrate how precarious the employer's coordination with Medicare can be, and how employers who merely agree to "supplement" Medicare may take on a larger responsibility than they had anticipated. These include proposals to allow Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in a variety
19 of managed care plans and to participate in medical savings accounts; to increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67 or higher; to raise Medicare premiums and deductibles; and to reduce hospital and physician reimbursements. Employers should consider carefully how their active and retiree plans coordinate with Medicare and possible changes to that program and make this clear in employee communications. Retiree health plans should also be designed to coordinate the benefits now voluntarily provided with those benefits required under the so-called COBRA "continued health coverage" requirements and should recognize that a company in reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code must continue to provide retiree health, disability and death benefits until a modification is agreed to by retirees or ordered by a court. 2 Finally, companies that shift to a managed care environment must decrease expectations of participants that all medical services from all sources are equally available. Managed care only effects cost reductions if the medical services are closely monitored and controlled. This is a change
20 from many employees' expectations that the employer will provide for the most convenient and best available services when their health is at issue. All of these measures will help employers to provide retiree health programs that meet reasonable expectations of retirees without unnecessarily restricting the employer with respect to future changes. ENDNOTES 1 See e.g., Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 45 (8 th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S (1995); Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6 th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct (1998). 2 See Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act of 1988, Pub. Law No , 102 Stat. 610 (1988) (codified at 11 U.S.C. 1114)
In Re: Unisys Corp (Mem Op)
1995 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-28-1995 In Re: Unisys Corp (Mem Op) Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 94-1912 Follow this and additional works
More informationHealth Insurance Benefits in
CSEA LEGAL DEPARTMENT Health Insurance Benefits in RETIREMENT Your Rights & Options Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO 143 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210 Danny Donohue, President CSEA, Inc. I JUNE 2014
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW PRICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; IBM LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationHow To Get A Pension From The Boeing Company
Employee Benefits Retiree Medical Plan Retiree Medical Plan Boeing Medicare Supplement Plan Summary Plan Description/2006 Retired Union Employees Formerly Represented by SPEEA (Professional and Technical
More information2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-15067 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00813-MEF-TFM
Case: 13-15067 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 1 of 8 DOROTHY SNOW, versus IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15067 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00813-MEF-TFM
More informationMINNESOTA SERVICE COOPERATIVES. Model Collective Bargaining Language. For Adoption of Group Medicare Supplemental Insurance
MINNESOTA SERVICE COOPERATIVES Model Collective Bargaining Language For Adoption of Group Medicare Supplemental Insurance Instructions. The model collective bargaining language that follows addresses the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
More informationERISA Causes of Action *
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 12 3067 LAWRENCE G. RUPPERT and THOMAS A. LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. ALLIANT
More informationDoes the arrangement described below constitute insurance within the meaning
Part I Section 801. Tax Imposed Rev. Rul. 2014-15 ISSUE Does the arrangement described below constitute insurance within the meaning of subchapter L of the Internal Revenue Code? If so, does the issuer
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-10122 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00667-RDP. versus.
Case: 10-10122 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10122 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00667-RDP PRINCIPAL
More informationCurrent Health Plan Funding Opportunities. David W. Powell and Christine L. Keller. Groom Law Group Washington, D.C.
Current Health Plan Funding Opportunities David W. Powell and Christine L. Keller Groom Law Group Washington, D.C. I. Review of Funding Vehicles A. Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) 1. The IRS defined
More informationYour Income Protection Plan Benefits
Your Income Protection Plan Benefits Contents Your Income Protection Plan Benefits...1 About This SPD... 1 Getting More Information... 1 Changes to the Plan... 2 Participating in the IPP...3 Eligibility...
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2004 WI App 55 Case No.: 03-0522 Complete Title of Case: DR. SHARON KABES AND ROGER BUCHHOLZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, V. Petition for Review filed THE SCHOOL
More informationCase 4:09-cv-00575 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:09-cv-00575 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION AMERICAN SURGICAL ASSISTANTS, INC., VS. Plaintiff, CIGNA HEALTHCARE
More informationCase 3:13-cv-00869-L Document 22 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 220
Case 3:13-cv-00869-L Document 22 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 220 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADONIS ROBINSON AND TAMESHA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs,
More informationYour DuPont Benefit Resources. Total and Permanent Disability Income Plan July 2008
Your DuPont Benefit Resources Total and Permanent Disability Income Plan July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS DETAILS OF THE PLAN...1 PREFACE...1 INTRODUCTION...1 ELIGIBILITY...1 ENROLLMENT...2 COST...2 PLAN BENEFIT...2
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRAIG VAN ARSDEL Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2579 v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Smith, J. September 5,
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 03-1345 C Filed September 24, 2004 TO BE PUBLISHED ) FREDERICK J. SONNENFELD, ) ) RCFC 12(b)(1), RCFC 12(b)(6), Plaintiff, ) Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491,
More informationTitle IV Treatment of Rollovers from Defined Contribution Plans to Defined Benefit Plans
[Billing Code 7709-02-P] PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4001, 4022, and 4044 RIN 1212-AB23 Title IV Treatment of Rollovers from Defined Contribution Plans to Defined Benefit Plans AGENCY:
More informationNEGOTIATING WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
NEGOTIATING WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID I. MEDICARE PROVIDES HEALTHCARE COVERAGE A. Persons 65 Years Old and Older B. Certain Disabled Persons under 65 C. Persons with End-Stage Renal Disease II. MEDICARE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
More informationContinuation of. Health Insurance Benefits
Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits 1 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) Coverage may be continued for up to 18 months through COBRA for the same or reduced coverage You will
More informationMEMORANDUM. Select Group Requirement for ERISA Top Hat Plans
MEMORANDUM Select Group Requirement for ERISA Top Hat Plans November 27, 2007 We discuss below how the courts and Department of Labor ("DOL") have interpreted the ERISA requirement that participation in
More informationMetropolitan Edison Company Bargaining Unit Retirement Plan
Metropolitan Edison Company Bargaining Unit Retirement Plan January 2007 Metropolitan Edison Company Bargaining Unit Retirement Plan This Summary Plan Description is created for the use of eligible participants
More informationIRS Issues Guidance on COBRA Premium Subsidy IRS Notice 2009-27
April 8, 2009 IRS Issues Guidance on COBRA Premium Subsidy IRS Notice 2009-27 On March 31, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued much anticipated guidance on the COBRA premium subsidy provided
More informationPractical Considerations in Seeking to Reduce Retiree Health Care Costs Nancy G. Ross John A. Litwinski McDermott Will & Emery LLP
American Conference Institute s ERISA LITIGATION Thursday, April 14 to Friday, April 15, 2011 Practical Considerations in Seeking to Reduce Retiree Health Care Costs Nancy G. Ross John A. Litwinski McDermott
More informationSummary Plan Description for the North Las Vegas Fire Fighters Health and Welfare Trust Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan
Summary Plan Description for the Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan General Benefit Information Eligible Expenses All expenses that are eligible under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, such
More informationCenturyLink Retiree Life Insurance Plan. SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION for Legacy Qwest Post-1990 Retirees (Management and Occupational)
CenturyLink Retiree Life Insurance Plan SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION for Legacy Qwest Post-1990 Retirees (Management and Occupational) CenturyLink, Inc. Effective January 1, 2013 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...
More informationUniversity of Chicago Long-Term Disability Summary Plan Description
University of Chicago Long-Term Disability Summary Plan Description June 2007 University of Chicago Long-Term Disability Plan Page 1 Table of Contents Your LTD Benefits... 3 Participating in LTD... 3 Eligibility...
More informationEmployee Relations. Waivers and Severance Arrangements: EEOC Announcement Offers Reminders for Employers. Anne E. Moran
VOL. 35, NO. 4 SPRING 2010 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Employee Benefits Waivers and Severance Arrangements: EEOC Announcement Offers Reminders for Employers Anne E. Moran One common practice
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-3751 Christopher Freitas; Diane Freitas lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., doing business as
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION : : : : : : : : ORDER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION COLLINS COLLISION CENTER, INC., ET AL v. REPUBLIC FIRST BANK ORDER AUGUST TERM, 2012 NO.
More informationDespite A Very High Income, Chapter 7 Debtor s May Succeed. Pamela Frederick, J.D. Candidate 2016
Despite A Very High Income, Chapter 7 Debtor s May Succeed 2015 Volume VII No. 9 Despite A Very High Income, Chapter 7 Debtor s May Succeed Pamela Frederick, J.D. Candidate 2016 Cite as: Despite A Very
More informationEMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN BANKRUPTCY: COBRA HEALTH CONTINUATION COVERAGE RULES. Teleconference / Live Audio Webcast May 12, 2004
American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits EMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN BANKRUPTCY: COBRA HEALTH CONTINUATION COVERAGE RULES Teleconference / Live Audio Webcast May 12, 2004 Charles K. Chip
More informationAn Employer s Guide to Group Health Continuation Coverage Under COBRA
An Employer s Guide to Group Health Continuation Coverage Under COBRA The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration This publication
More informationWarwick Public School System
Warwick Public School System Actuarial Valuation Post Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions as of July 1, 2011 under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45 (GASB 45) (Estimated Disclosures
More informationSummary Plan Description. ExxonMobil Family Adjustment Plan ExxonMobil Family Income Plan ExxonMobil Contributory Group Life Insurance Plan
Summary Plan Description ExxonMobil Family Adjustment Plan ExxonMobil Family Income Plan ExxonMobil Contributory Group Life Insurance Plan January 2015 About the Plans This Summary Plan Description (SPD)
More informationFor a complete list of EBSA publications, call toll-free: 1-866-444-EBSA (3272) This material will be made available in alternate format upon request:
This publication has been developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. It is available on the Internet at: www.dol.gov/ebsa For a complete list of EBSA publications,
More informationPresented by: Larry Grudzien Attorney at Law
Presented by: Larry Grudzien Attorney at Law We re proud to offer a full-circle solution to your HR needs. BASIC offers collaboration, flexibility, stability, security, quality service and an experienced
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationFOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS
Page 1 FOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS NICOLE TERRY, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hunter Wellman, Jr., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEBORAH A. WELLMAN, Defendants.
More informationEmployee Relations. HIPAA s Special Enrollment Rights: Today s Rules. Anne E. Moran
VOL. 35, NO. 3 WINTER 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Employee Benefits HIPAA s Special Enrollment Rights: Today s Rules Anne E. Moran One of the issues in the health care reform debate has
More informationMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Summary Plan Description for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Long-Term Disability Plan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Summary Plan Description for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Long-Term Disability Plan July 1, 2009 Table of Contents Introduction 3 For Assistance or More
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD.
Case: 14-10001 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD SOUTH FLORIDA
More informationT.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
More informationRetirement Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees of Florida Progress Corporation
Document title: AUTHORIZED COPY Retirement Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees of Florida Progress Corporation Document number: HRI-PGNF-00013 Applies to: Keywords: Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (bargaining
More informationApril 2007 JONES DAY COMMENTARY
April 2007 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Who Killed Yard-Man? It is probably ERISA s greatest whodunit. Our story begins innocently enough, many years ago when an employer s cost of providing medical benefits was
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL JOHNSON, a single person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationANN ARBOR CITY NOTICE
ANN ARBOR CITY NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. ORD-11-13 RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS PLAN AND TRUST An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1:700, 1:702, 1:704, 1:717, 1:723, 1:724 and 1:747 of Chapter 21, Retiree Health
More informationSupplemental Term Life Insurance Plan
Supplemental Term Life Insurance Plan JANUARY 1, 2006 Who Is Eligible Service Requirement Eligibility Date Dependent Age Limit Employee-Only Coverage Options Spouse-Only Coverage Options Children-Only
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationIs Chapter 11 Bankruptcy A Possibility? Have You Remembered Your Employee Benefit Plans? David N. Levine 1
Is Chapter 11 Bankruptcy A Possibility? Have You Remembered Your Employee Benefit Plans? David N. Levine 1 In recent years bankruptcy has become a necessity for many companies. Some companies are liquidated
More informationSummary Judgment - Showing Case Paper
Case 5:03-cv-00175-DF Document 40 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION LINDA DENT, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : 5:03CV175 (DF) :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationSupplementing Medicare: Your Rights to Purchase a Medigap Policy
FACT SHEET Supplementing Medicare: Your Rights to Purchase a Medigap Policy (B-005) p. 1 of 5 Supplementing Medicare: Your Rights to Purchase a Medigap Policy This fact sheet describes your rights to purchase
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HASSAN DRIDI : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. : NO. 07-2512 O NEILL, J. JANUARY 2, 2008 MEMORANDUM On
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-10459. D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24098-UU. versus
Case: 15-10459 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 1 of 14 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10459 D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24098-UU GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC.,
More informationIndividual Health Savings Accounts
July 22, 2015 Individual Health Savings Accounts INITIAL CONSIDERATION By Ryan Frost Research and Policy Manager 360 586 2325 ryan.frost@leoff.wa.gov ISSUE STATEMENT There is a gap in healthcare coverage
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE
More informationProgress Energy Life Insurance Plan, Progress Energy Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance Plan and Progress Energy Business Travel Accident Plan
Document title: Progress Energy Life Insurance Plan, Progress Energy Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance Plan and Progress Energy Business Travel Accident Plan Document number: HRI-SUBS-00013 Applies
More informationIntroduction to ERISA Long-Term Disability Claims
Introduction to ERISA Long-Term Disability Claims By: Clay Williams SinclairWilliams LLC mcw@sinclairwilliams.com What Is ERISA? The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is a comprehensive and
More informationContents. ISP for Mid-Atlantic Associates (01/2001)
Contents Your Income Security Plan Benefits... 2 About This SPD... 2 Getting More Information... 3 Changes to the Plan... 3 Participating in the Plan... 4 Eligibility... 4 Conditions for Benefit Eligibility...
More informationDOL Provides Guidance on Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
Important Information Plan Administration and Operation September 1997* DOL Provides Guidance on Qualified Domestic Relations Orders WHO'S AFFECTED Qualified Domestic Relations Order rules apply to all
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION. EARL A. POWELL, In the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case 4:05-cv-00008-JAJ-RAW Document 80 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION EARL A. POWELL, In the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationCase 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
More information2:07-cv-12361-JF-DAS Doc # 18 Filed 03/19/08 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:07-cv-12361-JF-DAS Doc # 18 Filed 03/19/08 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STACEY MACK, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 07-12361 Hon. John Feikens
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-20576 Document: 00513133695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 29, 2015 REBECCA
More informationAgents E&O Standard of Care Project
Agents E&O Standard of Care Project Survey Maryland To gain a deeper understanding of the differing agent duties and standard of care by state, the Big I Professional Liability Program and Swiss Re Corporate
More informationCenturyLink RETIREE LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT Legacy CenturyTel Retirees TABLE OF CONTENTS
CenturyLink RETIREE LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT Legacy CenturyTel Retirees TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 FEATURES OF THE LIFE PLANS...2 Your Beneficiary...2 How to File a Claim...2 Recovery of Payments...2
More informationS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #94-0044
JOHN POTEREK, PLAINTIFF, 1997 OPINION # 24 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION LABORERS METROPOLITAN DETROIT HEALTH CARE FUND, INTERVENING PLAINTIFF, V DOCKET #94-0044
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 3:12-cv-12097-MAP Document 64 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SHARON PROUTY, ) Plaintiff ) ) ) v. ) C.A. NO. 12-cv-12097-MAP ) THE HARTFORD
More informationHow To Sue Allstate Insurance Company
Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MRI SCAN CENTER, INC., on itself and all others similarly situated,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3381 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corporation, doing business as Philadelphia Insurance Companies lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
More informationVesting under ERISA Health Plans: Can Lifetime Benefits Be Reduced or Eliminated? by Helen M. Kemp
Vesting under ERISA Health Plans: Can Lifetime Benefits Be Reduced or Eliminated? by Helen M. Kemp Although General Motors stopped promising retiree medical benefits to new workers in the early 1990s,
More informationWORKERS COMPENSATION BASICS COORDINATION OF BENEFITS. Hank Patterson Patterson Harkavy LLP Chapel Hill, North Carolina September 19, 2011
WORKERS COMPENSATION BASICS COORDINATION OF BENEFITS Hank Patterson Patterson Harkavy LLP Chapel Hill, North Carolina September 19, 2011 I. Introduction A comprehensive knowledge of government and private
More informationHEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT
HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT C O M M U N I T Y C O L L E G E S Y S T E M O F N E W H A M P S H I R E S U M M A R Y P L A N D E S C R I P T I O N Copyright 2005 SunGard Inc. 04/01/05 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3185 Donald Kern; William Grimm, as Trustees of the Plasterers & Cabinet Makers Health Fund lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v.
More informationCase 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 35 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 35 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KAREN L. BACCHI, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 14-cv-1358 v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION Evelyn Kauffman and Dennis Rocheleau, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 14-cv-1358 v. ) ) General Electric Co., )
More informationFAQs for Employees about COBRA Continuation Health Coverage
FAQs for Employees about COBRA Continuation Health Coverage U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration January 2012 Q1: What is COBRA continuation health coverage? Congress passed
More informationEmployer Group Application
Employer Group Application Please complete entire application using dark blue or black ink. 1515 North Saint Joseph Avenue PO Box 8000 Marshfield, WI 54449-8000 1-800-472-2363 or 715-221-9555 TTY 1-877-727-2232
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SHELBY E. WATSON, Appellant, v. No. SC93769 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., ET AL., Respondents. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The Honorable
More informationWindstream Basic Life and AD&D Summary Plan Description
Windstream Basic Life and AD&D Summary Plan Description 1 1. INTRODUCTION Windstream Services L.L.C. sponsors the Windstream Basic Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) Insurance Plan (the
More informationWHEN COVERAGE ENDS AND CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE
WHEN COVERAGE ENDS AND CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE An Employee s coverage under the Health Plan ends on the earliest of: (a) (b) Last day of the coverage period following the date employment ends, as set
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
In re: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 16, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LAWRENCE A. BROCK; DIANE MELREE BROCK,
More informationLife Group Insurance. Benefit Booklet
LifeMap Assurance Company TM 100 SW Market Street P.O. Box 1271, MS E-3A Portland, OR 97207-1271 (503) 721-7161 (800) 794-5390 Life Group Insurance Benefit Booklet OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION Active
More informationTHE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES GROUP HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN FOR UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION. Effective January 1, 2012
THE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES GROUP HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN FOR UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION Effective January 1, 2012 This document, together with the attached documents listed
More informationBad Faith: Choice of Law Matters
Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Insurance and Reinsurance Review - September 2010 Marc S. Voses Choice of law issues cannot be overlooked in insurance bad faith litigation,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-13724. D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-81259-RNS. versus
Case: 14-13724 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-13724 D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-81259-RNS GLENAAN ROBBINS, individually
More informationYour Health Care Benefit Program
Your Health Care Benefit Program HMO ILLINOIS A Blue Cross HMO a product of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois HMO GROUP CERTIFICATE RIDER This Certificate, to which this Rider is attached to and becomes
More informationHow To Transition From Early Retiree To Self Pay
Retiree Guide to Health and Dental Benefits IMPORTANT: This guide is provided as a convenience, and is only intended to act as an informational overview of your benefits. Be sure to read your union s collective
More informationTHE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
2014 UT App 187 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LARRY MYLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BLACKSTONE FINANCIAL GROUP BUSINESS TRUST, Defendant and Appellee. Opinion No. 20130246-CA Filed August 7, 2014 Third
More informationAK Steel Corporation Voluntary Term Life Insurance
c AK Steel Corporation Voluntary Term Life Insurance IAM Local 1943 Hourly Employees Summary Plan Description Effective March 15, 2007 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Former Announcements... 1 Eligibility...
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00753-MSK-BNB Document 29 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-00753-MSK-BNB Document 29 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-CV-00753-MSK-BNB ALEXANDER L. TRUJILLO, DAVID HENRICHSEN,
More informationCan an employer extend all spousal benefits to same sex spouses? Yes.
Employee Benefit Ramifications of Same Sex Marriages In Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FIDELITY & GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellee, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2015 Elisabeth A.
More informationCase 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK
More information